Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Commission - Minutes - 05/26/2021 Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Hearing Ted Shepard, Vice Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen 300 Laporte Avenue Per Hogestad Fort Collins, Colorado David Katz Jeff Schneider Cablecast on FCTV, Channel 14 on Connexion & Channels 14 & 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221 -6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Special Hearing May 26, 2021 Chair Haefele called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Roll Call: Haefele, Hansen, Hogestad, Katz, Schneider, Shepard Absent: None Staff Present: Everette, Yatabe, Claypool, Sizemore, Mapes, Hahn, Virata, Stephens, McHaffey, and Brennan Chair Haefele provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. She described the following procedures:  While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated.  The Commission is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Commission once for each item.  Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code.  Should a citizen wish to address the Commission on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well.  This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review CDNS Interim Director Sizemore reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 2 of 12 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: None noted. Consent Agenda: None noted. Public Input on Consent Agenda: None noted Chair Haefele noted there were no items on the Consent Agenda for Commission action. Discussion Agenda: 1. West Willox UE Density Modification (Stand-Alone) Project Description: This is a request for a Modification of a Standard in the Urban Estate zone district to increase allowable density from 2 dwelling units per acre to 4 per acre on a 19 -acre property. The applicants intend to submit a development plan with the requested density, but they find it important to resolve the fundamental question of how many homes would potentially be built, before investing in a full Project Development Plan submittal. Recommendation: Approval Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief overview of this project. Mike McBride, land planner and owner of MMLA Landscape + Planning, and Ken Mitchell, owner and manager of Mosaic Land Development, also provided a verbal/visual overview of this project. Commission Questions Secretary Brennan reported that Charles Eichman left a voicemail in opposition to the modification of standards for the Willox property because it doesn’t fit with the rural character of the existing neighborhood. In particular, he voiced concerns about the height of the potential future buildings. Planner Mapes spoke with Mr. Eichman after the message and Planner Mapes was able to clarify the plan and satisfy Mr. Eichman’s questions. At the end of the conversation, Mr. Eichman was agreeable to the modification. Member Shepard asked if there was an opportunity for bike or pedestrian connection to the Hickory mobile home park. Mr. Mitchell stated there is an existing connection from Soft Gold Park to Hickory Village. Member Shepard asked other than that connection, was there an opportunity to connect farther North to connect this project to Hickory Village. Mr. Mitchell responded they have a 20-foot easement on the upper Northeast corner of the property that acts as a sanitary sewer easement for connection to a manhole that sits about 260 feet into Hickory Village. He needed to review the utility easement, but he believed it would give enough allowance to put a connection there. If the owners of Hickory Village would allow it, after making the connecti on to the manhole, they could pour a short section of sidewalk. It would be about 150-200 feet to make the connection. Mr. McBride said if they could find a place, they would gladly put them in. Member Shepard asked if Garden Sweet Farm was currently served by utilities. Mr. Mitchell had worked extensively with Garden Sweet. Several years ago, there was a development plan for this property, and at the time there was an agreement for a sanitary sewer connection because they have a septic system, as well as all the DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 3 of 12 properties West. He felt that within the City, they should have City facilities so they have committed to bring out a street connection for sewer, as well as a stub for water. The owners of Garden Sweet live in an old home that is falling apart and would like to build a new one. He wanted to set them up to build a new one when they decided to do that, which meant they had access to all the utilities we think of when we think of the City of Fort Collins. He added the lack of adequate water to that area, particularly water pressure, created a gap in fire protection and safety that also translates into insurance rates. Everyone in this area is paying a higher insurance premium. Member Shepard stated Garden Sweet must be on a well, but asked where they were getting electricity. Mr. Mitchell could not remember the name of the utility, but there was a utility across the street providing their electric. There was another rural water company providing their water. They were getting their faciliti es from rural utilities outside Fort Collins. They do have non-potable irrigation water from the Larimer and Weld Canal. Member Hogestad asked how the 50 percent open space was derived and if it was a requirement. Planner Mapes stated it is a standard in the Urban Estate planning zone, meaning it is a requirement. Member Hogestad asked if it was a description in the Land Use Code for that zone. Planner Mapes said yes, the Urban Estate zone allows the option of either subdividing into half-acre lots or doing a cluster development with 50% open space. It is really intended as an incentive to do the clustering. He was unsure if he had ever seen a development come in with half - acre lots in the Urban Estate zone. Member Hogestad questioned whether it was still a 50% open space requirement whether it was 2 units per acre or 4 units. Planner Mapes said that is the starting point, but he would warn everyone that in a development plan with a 4-dwelling units per gross acre structure there would be a modification to reduce it. There was one other standard for cluster developments: density. The standard was 5 units per acre within the cluster. It is a little bit complicated, doing the math with 4 units per cluster and having the dwelling units limited to 5 units per acre. There would be more modifications in a development plan for those things. It would not surprise him if the density ended up being a little bit more than 5 units per acre, maybe 6 or 7 in the single-family portion. He would expect other modifications, but the basic 4 per acre was something they wanted to get before the Commission before working on the other numbers. Member Hogestad asked if they would be asking for a modification to increase the density, but Planner Mapes said it would be to reduce the percentage required of open space. Member Hogestad asked if lowering the open space requirement would increase density. Member Katz stated overall density would not increase when including the open space, but cluster density may exceed 5. Planner Mapes commented they were looking at 76 homes over the property, and he knew the Applicant wants to make them all single-family detached. He pointed out that if you were to put some attached in there, it would be a way to get 50% open space. That is to be determined in a development plan, but they were anticipating single-family detached. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to clarify the density range in the City Plan Structure Plan Map for the suburban neighborhood place type. It is a description, 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Typically, projects come in more in the 7 to 12 range but zoning in that place type could be LMN to MMN. That is a wide range of 5 to 20, and the City Plan describes it as typically being more in the 7 to 12 range. It is very descriptive but not specific. After reflection, Planner Mapes said he needed to go back and apologized to Member Shepard. He confused the mixed neighborhood place type with the suburban neighborhood place type, and this was the latter. It is described as being between 2 and 5 dwelling units per acre. The neighboring area was mixed neighborhood place type, so Urban Estate zoning would be at the lower end of development in this place type. Member Shepard asked if sidewalks were required in Urban Estate zoning from the standpoint of Larimer County Urban Area Streets if you do not do a cluster plan, because Planner Mapes had shown a slide of Hearthfire. Planner Mapes said that was not in the Land Use Code as far as he knew. Member Shepard pointed out the slides of Hearthfire showed no sidewalks. Planner Mapes responded Hearthfire was a PUD but it was an interesting idea that he touched on showing the street edge of the pictures along Willox. As they conjure up plans for the rural edges of the City, they did not have a street edge for the rural area that was not the standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk to consider. Engineering staff was present and looking to see if Code addressed it. Planner Mapes did DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 4 of 12 have a recent project on Douglas Road, even more at the edge of the City than this one, and that project has been approved with the standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk with a row of street trees. It is going to really stand out as not being consistent with the area. The idea of a different curb for rural areas is something he is interested in, but with Hearthfire he is not sure what happened. Member Schneider commented the ponds on the furthest West side were located in the UE zone district and they did not have sidewalks. That is another example of UE with no curb and gutter requirements. Engineer Virata stated generally we do have a rural local street standard that he had yet to see used. He was unsure if this project would qualify, because there is a specific requirem ent for internal local streets with minimum lot sizes of 1 acre or larger and when the traffic volume on the street is anticipated to be less than 300 vehicles per day. Without a formal development plan, he could not say if this proposal would meet those requirements. Planner Mapes stated there is such a thing as a street without a sidewalk not in the Urban Estate zone. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to confirm that single-family attached within the Urban Estate could be up to a duplex but no greater. Planner Mapes said no, the Code states within a cluster, the houses are duplexes and single-family attached, so it is not limited to single-family attached in groups of two. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to confirm that within a cluster, the developers would get the benefit of greater than a duplex, and Planner Mapes confirmed. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Jean Pitt, owner of the property to the West of the development, she had several concerns about doing a Metro District. If you do something like that, you cannot provide affordable housing, which was discussed at the neighborhood meeting. Prices would be quite high for what was provided. The other issue she had was the number of homes developers were trying to put in there. She think s the reason is getting developer costs paid for, but the way it is zoned now they could not pay to get infrastructure to that lot. There is only one entrance and exit onto Willox. That is a really red flag. She has barbed wire fences, cows, horses, donk eys, and chickens to the West of the property. It does not fit with the agricultural feel. They did not have any problem with water pressure there. They have all had their septic systems redone and spent a lot of money on those so they do not need sewer . The water service is Northern Colorado Water District. They have Excel for gas and REA for electric. One more issue is how much fill dirt they would have to bring in because the water level here is the old riverbed. They hit water at 4 feet there. The developer had said the project was net zero, but she did not see 76 homes that are going to pollute with gas as net zero. Ryan, from Garden Sweet, the neighbors to the West of the property, for the record the last time he was in a meeting was in December in the neighborhood meeting. As far as working closely with the developer, he only gets information from the meetings. He had a little insight early on but he really does not know what is happening next door, although it sounds like he might have a whole bunch of neighbors at some point. For utilities they are on Northern Water and City of Fort Collins Electric. They are the last guys on the electric line. To clarify more about services to the property next to them, they did not have any big plans other than to keep growing food next to the property, but if they are saying they can bring utilities and service the neighbors, he wanted to know how the City approached a development that promised bringing utilities. Would it be on the basis of ser vicing one bathroom? He did not know how it all works. Staff Response Planner Mapes responded to Ryan’s comment. W hat he has observed in other projects is when a water line or electric line is extended to another property, it is extended and is able to be stubbed. Utilities do not operate by giving the minimal amount for each development, and then dealing with the next development as it comes. There is planning. For the purpose of the hearing on density, the two more units per acre would make no diff erence in that regard. The whole thing is more feasible with more homes to pay for it. Whatever utilities would bring service to this area would not depend at all on 2 more units per acre. Mr. Mitchell responded to Ms. Pitt’s comment. Each individual housing unit would generate more electricity on the lot for the household than would be consumed. At the end of the year, there would be a net zero consumption of energy. If you looked at the combination of roof and geothermal energy, they would be putt ing more energy back DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 5 of 12 into the grid than would be required of the grid. He has talked to residents of Revive, and they all get a check back from the utility at the end of the year for that reason. They are actually a local generator of electricity. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying Questions Mr. Schneider was playing with the numbers, and if you leave half as open space with the 76 units, that is 8 units per acre, not 4. At the work session, he asked if changing 2 to 8 per acre would change gross versus net. That is a substantial difference in his opinion. Single-family attached would be townhomes. Without an actual plan to review, it is really hard to say he is OK with this on the density they are ask ing for. They would have to start playing games with the structure if they are really trying to keep the 50% open space. His concern is that he is hearing there will be modifications to standards to lower the 50% open space in an Urban Estate cluster dev elopment. Without seeing what they were proposing, it is really hard to say yes today. He was struggling with the numbers. He understood from a business standpoint what makes sense. There were six different ways to play with this, and some fit the character of the area but some did not. He wanted to know if the developers were guaranteeing the 50% open space. Mr. Mitchell has been doing this for 40 years, so the question of density is uppermost in his mind and he was familiar with the various forms density takes. He had a current project in Larimer County with two units per acre, and the price was $850,000.00 to $1 million per unit. The challenge in Fort Collins is there are more people that needs houses that cost less than we can provide lot suppl y for. The property could be developed at 2, 4 or 8 per acre. At the neighborhood meeting, they committed to avoid townhomes because they were inappropriate as a buffer. The original intent was to ask for LMN zoning with a cap of 4 units per acre and to avoid the 50% issue. They see the 50% as a moot point, given the area is surrounded by parks and open space. From the standpoint of public land use, it does not make sense to have such great facilities next door and to arbitrarily require 50% open space in the land area. They believe that open space is more useful in things like regional trail connections. The Parks Department wants the developers to work with them to provide non-potable water to the City park. The development team thinks the 50% is less important than moving water from the Larimer and Weld Canal across the property to the park, because they are using potable water right now which is energy inefficient. They can solve that problem and create good connectivity to parks and open space. Getting back to the original issue, the two properties he is working on now that had 4 units to the acre ranged in price from $425,000.00 to $800,00.00 or $900,000.00. The upper range had incredible mountain views or lake and mountain views. The prepond erance of the properties cost $425,000.00 to $600,000.00. If you are looking for attainability for the combined income of most people, you cannot get there with two unit to the acre density with large lots. They want to develop a product that is more in tune with the times as far as energy and water efficiency. With 4 units to the acre as a benchmark, they would like the opportunity to work with Planner Mapes on a plan acceptable to the Commission. They would spend a lot of time and money to develop a plan. They do not have plans right now to have a Metro District; that could change but it was not the plan now. The three properties they are working on now have a Metro District, but they are the right size for it. A smaller plot of land costs too much for a Metro District. There is no way to get 4 units on an acre and 50% open space, but the benefits they could provide to the Natural Areas department and to the City Parks Department are strong benefits to the City. They just need some direction, because they have spent a significant amount of time and money, working with City Staff for roughly a year and a half on utilities. They just need to get to the next step so they can do land planning. If they could get permission for 4 units to the acre, they could develop a plan. The Commission had the right to deny any plan brought to them. They wanted the Commission to feel comfortable with their plan. 4 units to the acre would be a benchmark, and they could review the plan brought to them. Planner Mapes specified gross density was kind of like what is allowed by zoning. When zoning is conceived, there is no land plan to review. If the Commission thinks zoning can be appropriate they could move forward. This is a shift away from a re-zoning to LMN, which would have been harder. This is just updating the standard from allowing 2 to allowing 4. If they think a developer can come in under that benchmark and accomplish the things that need to be accomplished on that property, they can support it. Member Hansen asked for clarification from Planner Mapes if the property would remain as Urban Estate zoning, the standard is now 2 units per acre gross, either doing two half -acre lots or cluster development. Planner Mapes affirmed. Member Hansen asked if the modification was approved, would developers have the option of dividing DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 6 of 12 the whole thing into quarter-acre lots or doing a higher cluster density with 50% open space. Planner Mapes said the higher cluster density would require townhomes, so that is out. Quarter-acre lots, no. Member Hansen stated if you do 50% open space, that leaves about 9.5 acres to put 76 dwelling units on, about 1/8 th of an acre per lot, and we see a lot of properties in Fort Collins with that size lot. Planner Mapes said the subdivision option is to divide the whole entire property into half-acre lots. This would not enable anyone to divide the whole property into quarter-acre lots. In the cluster, the lots will be smaller than a half or quarter -acre. Member Hansen reiterated his positions about the 1/8th acre lots, and Planner Mapes agreed it was possible. That was the point of a cluster plan, and maybe they could get to 50% open space with that scenario. Member Shepard asked Planner Mapes to clarify when the future plan was brought before the Commission it would be a Type II P & Z review and not a Type I Administrative Review. Planner Mapes confirmed it would be a Type II. Member Shepard also asked Planner Mapes to confirm that if the y proceed tonight, they should fully expect two modifications: 1) less than 50% open space, and 2) there will be greater than 5 units per cluster. Planner Mapes said he would think so, it might be close to 5. Mr. Mitchell responded to public comment regarding the water table. They had done their own soils report, and the water table across the property runs anywhere from 5 to 8 feet. In the process of land development, typically developers excavate the streets and put the land from excavation on the lots, so he did not see an issue with the water table. The only issue with the water table would be basements, but more units these days do not have them due to high cost of materials. They would not be concerned if they could not do basements. This was not what he considered to be a shallow water table. He was confident the property could be developed and marketed in its current condition. Member Schneider asked Mr. Mitchell if they were planning a single entrance point off Willox because he was concerned about access for the fire department. Mr. Mitchell stated they had talked with the fire department about the issue. They were stubbing a street to the West to whatever point the City directs them, so there would be two points of connectivity. Until that was done, anything that was not within 600 feet would have to include a sprinkler. They would have to work that out with the fire department. Mr. McBride stated they did not have the frontage on Willox to put in another entrance point due to the intersection. Planner Mapes stated whether sprinklers would be required would not change whether there were 2 or 4 dwelling units per acre. Member Schneider noted the single point of contact and need for fire suppression contradicted their goals of affordabili ty. Mr. Mitchell stated he had built townhomes in Fort Collins and the City allows a system called RS-something that allows fire suppression to pull from domestic water supply. It is in the $1.50 per square foot range, which is not too expensive and does not affect the price too much. The system works for single family, as well. Deliberation Member Shepard pointed out a lot of things were mentioned that would not factor into his decision, to include local buyers, zero energy homes, the rural landscape buffer along Willox, the potable water for Soft Gold Park, and developing other projects in Larimer County. None of those fit into the criterion for decision making. Member Katz stated his decision was considering how the site transitions from high -density to low and if it fits within the Comprehensive Plan. It was difficult to do but his job is to focus just on the density and standalone modification. Based on that, and looking at the structure plan, that is going to be his North Star, if there is one. Member Schneider stated he agreed, many good goals of the project had been stated but those were not relevant. What was relevant and should be considered is a modification to density. He was looking at density and how it fits into the structure plan of the City. That was the only thing to consider tonight. Member Shepard asked the Chair permission to go on a brief tangent. He brought up a particular piece of code regarding the Planned Unit Development (PUD), but unfortunately that only starts with a plot above 50 acres. That requirement is an Article II procedural requirement, so it is not modifiable. If the PUD standard was in Article III, it would be modifiable. They could have had a discussion about a 19-acre PUD on a parcel of land that is probably not suited for Urban Estate and not the full-on LMN which allows up to 9 units per acre. That is what the PUD was for. As we move forward and contemplate policy changes, we should put our heads together on the benefits a smaller parcel might gain from the PUD process. DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 7 of 12 Member Hansen stated they had the conversation recently about whether there should be a minimum size for PUDs, and he was of the opinion there shou ld be smaller PUDs. He thanked Member Shepard for bringing it up. The Chair commented it seems there are pros and cons to smaller PUDs. She would not be opposed to a modifiable standard, but that was outside the issue. Member Schneider stated the goals and aspirations of the project would fit well. However, he was concerned about the density that could be proposed in the future based on the surrounding areas. There are so many ways to play the numbers game and lay it out. With 76 units that would be 5545 square feet per lot, which is above the minimum standard of 4500 but not by much. This would mean pretty high-density homes. For him it was a challenge to approve the modification without seeing the layout of a plan, including where on the lot the higher density would be. He was concerned because saying yes now almost guaranteed the developers would come back to the Commission for further modifications, and he preferred seeing the whole plan at once. He understood w hy the developers would do it this way from a business model and strategy viewpoint, and he respected their honesty in admitting they would be back for more modifications in the future. He was struggling to say yes until he could actually see the layout and the design, and the Chair agreed with him. Member Katz also agreed it was hard to conceptualize the plan. He pointed out the density to the East was quite a bit higher so it would fit in better than Member Schneider expressed. All the risk is on the developers because they are the only ones spending money on this. They have the right to take a sh ot at it, and if they can come up with a plan that satisfies 2.8.2(h) “as good or better”, then let them bring it to the Commission. For now, they needed to put the blinders on and look at it as just density, which he understood was very difficult to do. Member Schneider clarified that if density is higher in the East because that is compatible with neighboring property, that is what he was meaning about sloping density East to West. Member Katz said he thought someone had mentioned that density would be higher in the East and sloping to the West. Member Hogestad agreed with Member Schneider’s concerns. The package given to the Commission showed open space and a rural character, which conflicted with the density now being requested. He was having a r eally difficult time with the fact the plan would almost guarantee more modifications and not being able to truly see what they are being asked to vote on this evening. He found it difficult to support the item. Member Katz could see what the others were saying, but they were still in the PDP and they had to put the blinders on. Until they received a plan, they could not weigh the merits of it. The plan could come in with 62 houses, which was not likely, but it could. The risk was only on the applicant, so he did not see the harm. There would be a lot of work to do with Staff, and if they wanted to take the risk it was on them. Member Hansen noted when he ran the numbers, it is possible for them to create a development that satisfies everything they claim. It may or may not need a modification. From a designer’s point of view, he has confidence in the skill and creativity of the design team, especially when they are going to be working with Staff. Staff has the highest regard for the requirements in the Land Use Code, City Plan, and the concerns of impact from the neighbors. The application that comes before the Commission in the future will not disregard the impacts to the surrounding neighbors. There will be challenges, but he agrees with Member Katz that the risk of the challenges is on the Applicant. The neighbors, Commission, and City have a huge buffer to that risk, because the next level of design is on the design team and the developer. He is willing to approve the modification, and althou gh he is a little bit cautious, he is excited to see what the design team comes up with. It deserves a lot of scrutiny. He wants to see them take a try at it. Member Schneider understood the hesitancy of other members without a plan. He wanted to point out that Planner Mapes had said at no point would the gross density exceed 4 units per acre and wanted to emphasize that. Depending on the size of the cluster, that may inform what shape the housing takes. He also wanted to mention that he heard from Planner Mapes that at one point there was the intention to re-zone the property to LMN, but then they would have the challenges that LMN was too intense at about 9 units per acre and other non-residential land uses. That was good advice on the part of Staff to the Applicant that a better approach would be to modify the Urban Estate. We have two zone districts that do not meet in the middle, and there is a conflict or a gap between Urban Estate and LMN. The discussion showed they were experiencing that gap. Member Hogestad was still struggling with the idea of character, and what they had to discuss had nothing to do with that. You could do 4 per acre, but that wo uld eat up all the open space. The whole concept of doing that open DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 8 of 12 space does not make sense any longer. He wished the package that came to them was more clear and understandable as to what the developers wanted. He did not like the intermediate step t hat was of no value. He would have rather seen a rezone because it would be more straightforward and honest as to the intentions for the property. Member Katz agreed there were two zoning districts that did not meet in the middle. There is a lot of gray area in the standards, and they were never going to be perfect. That is why the Commission is granted the luxury of 2.8.2(h) to grant modifications that can actually be better than the standard. This property is not consistent with the structure map within the Comprehensive Plan right now in its density. This modification brings it up to the suburban density as defined within our City’s Comprehensive Plan. He thinks that is why Planner Mapes made the prudent decision to do it this way instead of re-zoning for LMN, which would have opened up the gates to a lot more. He thinks this was done properly and is excited to see what the design team will do. He would be supporting it. Member Hansen reiterated what Member Shepard said. They are looking at 4 gross units per acre. A density of 8 units per acre is not honest to the discussion. You might see that within a cluster, but it will be 4 gross and they need to remember that and keep the discussion in context. Member Schneider asked Planner Mapes a cl arifying question regarding the 50% cluster: within the cluster, does Code say how many units per acre the cluster can be? Planner Mapes said yes. He also clarified with lot sizes if 4500 it would still be possible to have 50% open space, so he was unsur e if it would absolutely be a requirement. Take the open space out and the remainder is not to exceed 5 units per acre by the standard. With this density, that standard will be exceeded. Member Schneider noted that even with the 50% open space, they can have lots of 5445 or at the 5 units per acre, they are at 47.5 units total. They will have to have some sort of modification if they are asking for 76. Planner Mapes stated the two modifications, the 50% and the 5 per acre, push and pull against each other. Once the lot has the 50% open space taken away, there are about 9.5 acres, but you cannot just divide that by 76 to get lot size. Local streets come off the top. Member Schneider had emailed Planner Mapes about how much land is lost to infrastructure bec ause he wanted to know exactly what the lot size was. He asked if 4700 or 4800 for lot size was more likely, and Planner Mapes agreed. Planner Mapes said we do not call that net. When we take the area that is not open space, it contains local streets an d the lots. That is how he is getting to something like 4790 if there is 50% open space. The density of that would be higher than 5 units per acre, which would require a modification. It might be close to 5. He was just giving a warning there would be modifications to the plan and maybe even to the 50%. It is possible to do it without modifications, though. Member Schneider asked if that included 76 units, and Planner Mapes said yes, that would be about 5 units per acre. Member Schneider said 5 units per acre was roughly 40 units. Planner Mapes agreed and said there would have to be a modification to the 50%, the 5 units or both. What the designers do will determine those numbers. Member Schneider was trying to understand what we were looking at in terms of numbers and what can be done to maintain the Urban Estate character with the 50% open space. Planner Mapes appreciated the chance to correct his earlier statement about absolutely not being able to meet 50% open space. Member Shepard asked Member Hogestad about saying if they do 4 units per acre there will not be open space. Member Hogestad stated he did not say that, but to maintain 50% open space the numbers in the cluster have to greatly increase. The problem is 50% open space is not ac curate. Member Shepard said that clarifies it, and he is hearing from Mr. Mitchell and Planner Mapes there might not be 50% open space. Member Hogestad he was offended it came packaged the way it was, even with the graphic. Member Shepard agreed the gra phic was not helpful. The Chair partly felt more housing would be beneficial, but she was picturing a lot of big houses. She could support a plan with smaller houses. Having done the math on her own lot, which is 9,000 square feet or .21 acres, which is 5 units per acre. She said it is cozy enough in her neighborhood and it is 50% or more below the average house size. She cannot imagine a neighborhood built so densely with big houses mushed together or a neighborhood with half acre lots. Her problem with the process is they are being asked to give this modification without seeing any of the things they are being promised. Now they are hearing there are issues with making the promises feasible. She will not support it and she would rather see it come as a package with a modification to the density, as well as a credible and well thought out plan that truly demonstrates it will be better than or equal to and not DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 9 of 12 detrimental to the public. Member Schneider and Member Hogestad had summed it up nicely. She would rather see it as a package, even if it requires a long hearing with a lot of modifications. Member Hansen said they needed to stop trying to design the development in their heads during the meeting. A development like this takes months and months of thinking and drawing things out. There is no way to visualize the ultimate outcome. They should separate this from any future development and solely consider if 4 dwelling units per acre gross fits within the City Structure Plan for this lot. He thinks it is very appropriate for this location. There could be solutions that are not appropriate but some are. That risk is on the developer and should not be what they are discussing tonight. Member Shepard pointed out that once zoning standards are set, the Commission does not get the benefit of a plan. That is what they are doing here, modifying the density standard without going further into the planning process. He emphasized Urban Estate zoning this close to College Avenue, downtown, King Soopers, industrial zoning, and the varied land uses on the East side of North College Avenue, he was not sure this parcel of land was the prototypical Urban Estate parcel. He is comfortable with the request and appreciates Member Katz’s comments about how it fits with the size and Structure Plan. He believes the discussion is inspiring the design team to come up with a great plan, just like Montava did. Member Hansen made a motion the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the West Willox Lane standalone modification request #MOD210001 based on the findings of fact and supporting explanations found in the Staff Report. This approval is also based on information presented during the Work Session and this hearing in the Commission discussion. This meets the requirements of provision 2.8 of the Land Use Code, that is not detrimental to the public good and that it is equal to or better than the provisions in the Code. Member Katz seconded. Member Schneider stated he would support this and let the design team try to figure out how to make this happen, although he would be very critical of the numbers and outcome of what would happen. There are a lot of opportunities to change the character of what is currently out there. He would support the motion and let the design team try to comply with the 4 dwelling units per acre without any modifications to the Standards. It would be a challenge for them. He was thinking with a 6 -person commission, he would like to at least let it move forward to see what the PDP looks like. That is where the attention to detail will come into play. Member Shepard would be supporting the motion but encouraged the design team to firstly make a great plan and let the numbers fall where they may. He does not want them to make 76 units the fir st step. He wants them to meet as many Article III Standards as they can. Vote: 4:2. The Commission took a brief, 10-minute recess. The Chair called the meeting to order at about 8:27 p.m. and a roll call vote was taken. All members were present. 2. Stanford Senior Living Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan (PDP) to build a four-story long-term care facility for seniors. Parking is both underground within the building and in a parking lot that is shared with the Marriott Hotel next door. The site is a platted lot served by the existing street system, with utility infrastructure in place to serve the lot. Access is proposed from Stanford Rd. to the east and Monroe Dr. to the north. The property is within the General Commercial (CG) zone district and requires Planning & Zoning Board (Type 2) Review. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Brennan reported that there was no additional citizen emails or letters received. Member Hansen reported a conflict of interest on this item and recused himself. He left the meeting before discussion began on the item. Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Mapes gave a brief overview of this project. DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 10 of 12 Stephanie Hansen and Matt Oermann of United Properties gave a brief verbal overview of the project, a senior assisted living facility with memory care. Public Input (3 minutes per person) None noted. Staff Response None. Commission Questions / Deliberation Clarifying Questions Member Shepard asked Chris Aronson of VFLA Architecture + Interiors which materials would be on the outside of the building. Mr. Aronson stated the brown is cementitious siding, and the basement level on the base is split -face CMU. Above the base is synthetic stone. The off-white color is stucco. The dark gray is another color of stucco. Member Shepard asked if the cementitious siding is comprised of panels with seams. Mr. Aronson stated they come in lengths and they are still playing with the pattern, deciding whether it would be a pattern as depicted in the presentation or it would be overlapping so vertical joints would be concealed. Member Hogestad asked if Stanford Road was a transit route. Ms. Hansen replied there is a bus stop there. Planner Mapes stated there are two routes on it. Member Hogestad wanted to know if they were North and South, but Planner Mapes was unsure because he had not looked into it. What Member Hogestad really wanted to know was how close was the bus stop on the same side of the street as the proposed project, b ecause he had heard in the Work Session there would be roughly 30 employees who might take the bus. He thought there might be a standard for bus stops that calls for requiring one and the project may be obliged to provide one. If one was close by, it might serve the same purpose. Mr. Aronson answered there is a bus stop on the West side of Stanford one block North by the Cycle Apartments. It would be fairly easy to get to with sidewalks. Member Hogestad asked about the parking lot belonging to the prop erty that was currently being used by Marriott to ensure that Marriott had met the parking requirement on their own property. Ms. Hansen said they had. Member Hogestad wanted to ensure if the parking lot was used for construction, Marriott would still ha ve parking for guests and employees. Ms. Hansen said they still meet the Land Use Code with parking on their own property. Member Shepard emphasized his desire that the materiality from the top of the building remain consistent. He was worried because there are buildings in Fort Collins that become less interesting, less varied, and less articulated on the upper floors. He requested as they go to plan, since this is a fairly large building, that the architecture at the top remain as interesting as at the base. Deliberation Member Katz commented the property was a strange one to work with and the team had done a really nice job. He recalled Mr. Aronson had stated he looked to relieve the sharp angles on the triangle -shaped lot. Member Katz thought this building would really freshen up Midtown, which is considered kind of stale. Nice job to the team at VFLA and Ripley Design. Member Hogestad felt he should comment on the design. What he likes about the design is the materials reflect residential imagery, even if the scale does not. It fits nicely on the site with the neighboring buildings. Mr. Aronson had done a good job getting both a residential and commercial component done. Member Katz asked Mr. Yatabe if the alternative compliance needed to be called out in a motion. Mr. Yatabe said in the past we have not dealt with alternative compliance separately. The alternative compliance provisions state it is up to the decisionmaker. Past and present practice has been if you are approving the project and accepting the recommendations from Staff and the findings, we have not asked the Commission to make a separate determination about that. You could comment on it. He had discussions with Staff asking how it was different from DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 11 of 12 a modification of standard. That is what the practice has been. It would be sufficient to adopt the Staff report and the findings, because it would include the alternative compliance. If you want to address it separately, you can make a comment specific to it or pull it out and make a separate motion about it entirely. Member Shepard really liked the tree protection program. He wishes that could become a standard because he would like to see more of it. When you drive around the City, you see a lot of trees at risk. He also stated this project could perhaps have been on consent. Member Schneider made a motion that the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Stanford Senior Living Project Development Plan (PDP) 200022 to also include the alternative compliance to Section 3.2.2(K)(2) for allowable up to 133 parking spots. This determination is based on the findings of fact, based on the Staff material that has been presented to us tonight, the Work Session, and all the information gathered in this hearing and the Board discussion on the side of it. It’s also based on the general materials that are contained within the Staff report. Member Katz seconded. Mr. Yatabe asked if he was correct that there were two different alternative compliances. He wanted to make sure if by calling out one the intent was to approve both. Planner Mapes agreed there were two different alternative compliance requests and he regretted putting one into the recommendation if the motion could just recommend approval of the PDP and stay silent on alternative compliance. That is the way he likes to think about alternative compliance . He would prefer it be part of the overall approval. Member Schneider was trying to capture all of it and has no problem with both alternative compliances. The Chair asked if the motion needed to be restated. Mr. Yatabe said it was clear based on the first sentence of the motion Member Schneider wants to approve the project, but he just wanted to clarify. It was not necessary to restate the motion. Member Schneider appreciated the plan, the infill with surrounding buildings, and how it ties into the area. It is an overall good-looking plan. Vote: 5:0. For more complete details on this hearing, please view our video recording located here: https://reflect-vod- fcgov.cablecast.tv/CablecastPublicSite/show/1194?channel=1 Other Business Mr. Yatabe mentioned if the Commission wants to handle alternative compliance in a different way, they can do that. He had just mentioned the way it had been done in the past. The Chair said it would be helpful to have some standard language for PDPs, then realized Member Hansen should re-join the meeting. Once Member Hansen was back in the meeting, the Chair suggested going forward Mr. Yatabe provide a sample motion. Mr. Yatabe said if you are OK with the alternative compliance and you adopt the findings o f the Staff report, that is sufficient and how the Commission could deal with them moving forward. If it becomes an issue, they can deal with it. It is not set in stone, but that is how it was handled. The Chair suggested as these things come up, they h ave a conversation about them in the Work Session. Member Shepard was in favor of how they have been handling it, consistent with past practice. The Chair suggested the longer-serving members of the Commission explain past practice at the Work Session. Member Hansen suggested a brief discussion or presentation on the difference between alternative compliance and modification of standard and how the determination is made. The Chair suggested they cover it in another meeting than June, unless there was some alternative compliance on the agenda, because June is busy. The Chair stated after talking to Interim CDNS Director Paul Sizemore, she is aware that Boards and Commissions may move to hybrid hearings. She asked Interim Director Sizemore to talk about it. He was awaiting direction from the Clerk’s office, but he got it today. There is no uniform guidance for Boards and Commissions, so each can decide when they are comfortable with returning to in-person meetings as long as Staff can support it. The y had hybrid experience from last Fall before Covid numbers increased and they switched to fully remote, so we know we can support it. He has heard a lot of discussion about the benefits of retaining electronic participation. He wanted to hear the Commission’s thoughts on the subject and whether they thought June was appropriate for the switch. They potentially had three meetings in June, a Work Session on June 11 th, at least one hearing date on June 17th, and a second date held for June 30th for a potential second hearing date. Member Schneider preferred to go back to in-person. He did not mind the hybrid to encourage participation but he felt the Commission should be in person because it was more efficient. Member Shepard agreed with Member Schneider. Member Katz agreed, as well. Member Hogestad agreed it was far more efficient to meet in person. Member Hansen stated meeting in person DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862 Planning & Zoning Commission May 26, 2021 Page 12 of 12 was better for the Board and anyone trying to participate in the meeting. The Chair commented it was pretty unanimous, and she agreed, although she would miss the advantage of standing there in her shorts and Birkenstocks. The casual attire was a perk, but she was ready to leave it behind. Interim Director Sizemore asked if they would be ready as early as the June Work Session. The Chair stated she thought so, that at some point they just had to say, “We’re vaccinated, and…” The important criteria would be that all Commission members and Staff were vaccinated. It is better to be in person. Member Schneider pointed out there was no dress code, so the Chair could wear what she wanted. The Chair laughed and said she had put on a nice shirt. Member Hansen said they were behind a wall so no one would know about her Birkenstocks and shorts. The Chair commented her husband had been dressing exactly like he does for the office, but she was the opposite. Interim Director Sizemore thanked them for the feedback, said it would be a big change, and he would work with Staff to do an in-person Work Session as early as June. He was looking into retaining remote participation, but he knows there are staffing and technical implications so he will do his best to get it to work in June. He will let them know in advance what the plan looked like so they c an plan accordingly. The Chair commented for a Work Session in a small room allowing citizens to listen remotely should not be too difficult. Adjournment Chair Haefele moved to adjourn the P&Z Commission hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Aubrie Brennan. Minutes approved by a vote of the Commission on: June 17, 2021. Paul Sizemore, Interim CDNS Director Michelle Haefele, Chair DocuSign Envelope ID: 70EE75B3-3F80-4746-94F4-DD85E7DF7862